W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1997

Re: RFC2109 addition...

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:48:11 -0500
Message-Id: <3337E5AB.15FB7483@bell-labs.com>
To: hedlund@best.com
Cc: Jonathan Stark <stark@commerce.net>, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
> > > > CommentURL=commenturl
> > >
> > > How about
> > >   CommentURL = '<' commenturl '>'
> >
> > I'm new to this whole process, so I guess I don't understand the
> > difference in notation.  Does this now imply that the attributeline would
> > look like this:
> >       CommentURL=<http://www.privacy.net/disclosure>
> > ?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > If so, I disagree.  It should be parsed the same as all the other
> > attributes...
> >       CommentURL=http://www.privacy.net/disclosure
> > However you notate that.... :)  I'm not sure... are there problems
> > with escaped characters in a URL meaning something in the Cookie?
> 
> Yes, Set-Cookie2 accepts a comma-separated list of cookies.  Since some
> sites (the c|net sites come to mind) use commas in URLs, we would need to
> protect the URL commas from interpretation.  This would add a little
> complexity to URL-parsing.

I don't think '<' and '>' improve the situation.  The general description of
values says they can be "-enclosed.  So a URL with special characters like ','
could be quoted.  (See my similar remarks about port-list for Port=.)  There's
no need to add <>.

Dave Kristol
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 1997 06:52:43 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:33 EDT